Obstructing the field means a batter deliberately interferes with or distracts the fielding side while the ball is in play. Law 37 also covers returning a live ball to a fielder without consent. Being struck by a throw does not automatically make a batter out: the circumstances, including whether the obstruction was deliberate or accidental, matter. MCC's official law and its 2026 clarifications explain why apparently similar incidents can produce different decisions.
| Question | Rule to consider |
|---|---|
| Was the obstruction deliberate? | Law 37.1 |
| Was it accidental or to avoid injury? | Law 37.2 exceptions |
| Was a catch prevented? | Law 37.3 |
| Was a live ball returned without consent? | Law 37.4 |
The starting point is the 2026 edition of MCC's Laws of Cricket. Law 37 applies to either batter, not only the striker. Its central provision covers deliberate interference through actions or words. That makes the decision broader than whether a ball physically touches somebody on its way to the wicket.
Can changing direction while running be obstructing the field?
MCC addressed this question in its 30 April 2026 clarification concerning Angkrish Raghuvanshi in a Kolkata Knight Riders match against Lucknow Super Giants. Its explanation focuses on the route he took after setting off for a single and being sent back. The issue was the deliberate crossing into the path of the throw, rather than the bare fact that the ball struck him.
According to MCC's account, Raghuvanshi began on the off side, crossed towards the middle of the pitch and returned on the leg side. That movement placed him between the ball and the wicket. MCC explained that a runner who changes direction to take a route other than the quickest one can be making a deliberate act. Its assessment therefore concerned the movement that created the obstruction.
MCC also described the contrasting situation: a batter who stays on the same side while turning back may be hit without deliberately obstructing the throw. Viewers should therefore look at the runner's starting position, turn and return route. A replay showing only the final impact can miss the part of the movement that explains the decision.
Another common question is whether the fielding side must prove that a run out would otherwise have happened. In its April explanation, MCC says the likely success of that dismissal is not the criterion, provided the obstruction is not about preventing a catch. A batter reaching the crease does not by itself resolve whether an earlier deliberate obstruction occurred.
Why returning the ball can get a batter out
Under Law 37.4, either batter can be dismissed for using the bat or any part of the body to return a live ball to a fielder without a fielder's consent. The key conditions are that the ball remains in play and permission has not been given. An action intended as a helpful gesture can still fall within this specific provision.
MCC discussed that situation in a separate 23 February 2026 clarification. Its explanation identifies practical reasons for the rule: handling can affect the ball's condition, and another batter may have left the ground without the player returning the ball realising it. Consent avoids allowing interference to be excused simply as an attempt to help.
The February statement also distinguishes the fielding side's choice to appeal from the umpire's application of the law. MCC says the fielders may choose not to appeal. Once they appealed in the situation it discussed, however, the umpires had to apply the relevant rule. Describing the action as polite does not remove the live ball and consent requirements.
Accidents, injury and prevented catches
Law 37.2 provides exceptions for accidental obstruction and obstruction intended to avoid injury. It also recognises a striker's lawful further strike to protect the wicket, subject to the separate catching provision. These qualifications are why every contact between a batter and a ball or fielder cannot be treated as an automatic dismissal.
Preventing a catch has its own consequences under Law 37.3. On a delivery that is not a no ball, deliberate obstruction by either batter that prevents the striker being caught results in the striker being out. The identity of the person who interfered therefore does not always identify the batter who is dismissed. The law sets out separate treatment for obstruction from a no ball.
Scoring also depends on the type of obstruction. Under Law 37.5, completed runs before the offence can count when the obstruction did not prevent a catch, alongside the penalties specified in the law. When a catch is prevented, completed running runs do not count, although the specified five run penalties stand. Law 37.6 says the bowler receives no credit for this wicket.
For related situations, read our explanations of run out rules, no ball rules and boundary catches. Each involves a different decision. When assessing obstruction, first establish whether the ball was live, then examine the action and the relevant exception before drawing a conclusion from the outcome of the throw.
